Frank Bruni, a Times Op-Ed columnist, hosted an online conversation with two prominent Democrats: Representative Seth Moulton, a second-term congressman from Massachusetts and the founder of the Serve America PAC, which promotes military veterans like Conor Lamb as House candidates; and Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who was a deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama’s re-election effort and is a founding partner in Precision Strategies in Washington. They discussed the challenges and opportunities that the 2018 midterms pose for Democrats.

Frank Bruni: There’s so much to discuss about Conor Lamb’s triumph. But maybe we should begin here, because I’m hearing ever more chatter since his win about Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi. Republicans genuinely believe — with, they say, polling evidence and election returns to back it up — that tethering Democratic candidates to Nancy Pelosi “from San Francisco” is one of their best weapons. Lamb blunted it by declaring loudly and repeatedly that he did not and would not support her as the leader of House Democrats. And you, Seth, voted for Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio over her for Democratic minority leader when you had the chance. Should candidates for the House renounce her? Should she proclaim that she has no interest in being House speaker if Democrats win the majority? Let’s start with you, Jen.

Jennifer O’Malley Dillon: One of the things that the Pennsylvania-18 election has shown is that the old playbooks did not work for the G.O.P. in this race. Lamb won because he understood his district, focused on local issues, worked hard on the ground, built relationships that were stronger than attack ads and ultimately proved he wasn’t going to be a rubber stamp.

There is no doubt that the G.O.P. will continue to use this playbook, but with Trump on their end and a barrage of daily news that clutters a clean message for them, I think it will be much harder to make that stick than in the past.

Bruni: Before we have Seth chime in, I’ve got to press a little harder: What should or shouldn’t candidates in districts somewhat similar to Lamb’s say or not say when it comes to Pelosi? You’re right, he showed his independence with the positions he took. But he also ran an ad making clear his lack of support for her.

O’Malley Dillon: I’m hard-pressed to believe that every candidate in similar districts is going to need to run an ad, as Lamb did. In part I think he was in that situation because of the $10 million outside groups were spending against him and the fact that this was a special election, which opened up the airways a bit more than we will see in November.

Seth Moulton: Conor is an extraordinary candidate — humble, down to earth, smart — and he truly understands public service. When I was knocking on doors with him on Saturday, you could see the trust he engendered in the people he will represent. There was also tremendous energy on the ground from activists, volunteers, union members — people who are fed up with the status quo, on both sides of the aisle, and are working hard for change. By calling for change in Washington, including in his own part, he’s representing the people I met on Saturday. “We need a new generation of leadership” was a refrain I heard a lot.

Bruni: But he named — prominently — Nancy Pelosi as the generation that must pass, and you, Seth, have done likewise before. So is that the template for other House candidates?

Moulton: The template is to represent your district and to do what you believe, without being afraid of the party or what people are saying in Washington. We need to be a party as diverse as the people and districts we represent.

O’Malley Dillon: Also, the national party was relatively thoughtful in how they supported this race and ensured that the resources they were spending and the services they were providing were less important than what Lamb was leading with. They made sure, to the extent they could control it, that the race wasn’t about them — wasn’t national — and was driven by Lamb. Tactically, I think they need to continue to do that through November.

Bruni: One more question on this front for each of you. First you, Seth: If Democrats retake the House — and that’s looking more and more likely — would you vote for Representative Joe Crowley of New York over Pelosi for House speaker? What about Adam Schiff of California? Both of their names are being floated.

Moulton: I’m 100 percent focused on winning the House. Then we’ll see who runs, and I’ll decide based on the candidates and their platforms. That’s exactly what I did after my letter to Leader Pelosi helped push back the election to allow others to run: I didn’t endorse Representative Tim Ryan over her until I heard him make his case. But one thing is clear: We need leaders who will build the bench, not clear it.

Bruni: And Jen, there are those who find the Republican attacks on Pelosi — and the focus on her as a factor in all this — sexist. What’s your feeling?

O’Malley Dillon: There is no doubt in my mind that the attacks on Leader Pelosi are driven in large part by her gender, and I think that is also why it often resonates more with certain segments of the population. Of course, there are other elements at play here, but anyone that suggests that gender isn’t part of this isn’t paying attention.

Bruni: As hugely encouraging as Lamb’s performance was, I have to wonder: Would he even have been the Democratic candidate in that district if he’d had to go through the kind of primary that other Democratic aspirants around the country will go through? It’s interesting to note that both he and Doug Jones, victorious in Alabama, had no primary challenge to navigate. Most other House candidates do. How does the party make sure that in swingable districts, it has the most strategically optimal general-election candidates and not the riskier ideologues that highly partisan primary voters sometimes reward?

Moulton: In 2014, I challenged an 18-year incumbent in my own party who was a frontline candidate every cycle — meaning he was a top Republican target — even though he had never had a significant primary challenge. The last general election poll before the primary had the Republican candidate, a respected state senator, beating the Democratic incumbent by six points, and it had me beating the Republican by six points. Folks in Washington on both sides of the aisle have told me since that we probably would have lost the seat if I hadn’t won my primary challenge. And having to go through a tough primary absolutely made me a far better candidate for the general election; I ended up beating the Republican by 13 points, not six.

O’Malley Dillon: I agree with Seth — primaries help our candidates get stronger and often bring greater enthusiasm to the primary contest, which can translate into the general election. I’d argue that President Obama would not have been as strong a candidate in 2008 without going through such a competitive primary process. One of the most exciting things about the time we are in right now is the energy that has been built on the ground and that is being transformed into more and more people running for office at all levels. Our party needs that.

Moulton: To Jen’s point, we would have had a stronger showing in the 2016 general election if we had had a more competitive primary process. Democrats need to start finding the best candidate, not the “next” candidate, up and down the ballot. That’s why I’ve been focused on recruiting and supporting extraordinary service veterans to run for House seats in 2018, candidates who have literally put their lives on the line for the country and therefore don’t have a hard time putting country over party and people over politics.

Bruni: I’ve definitely seen primary challenges that led to a much, much better general-election candidate. But some of these primaries are so intensely crowded and divisive that they could send the eventual victor into the general election with a whole lot of wounds and scars. Look at the Seventh Congressional District in Texas, where seven candidates competed on March 6 and one of the two who will be in the runoff, Laura Moser, was actively and publicly opposed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Did the D.C.C.C. bungle that situation, and how much of a problem could sharp-elbowed primaries like that one be?

O’Malley Dillon: As a general rule, the idea that tough primaries splinter our voters for the general is typically overblown. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen or that it doesn’t take time and effort to navigate those waters, but particularly in 2018, our voters are able to see the real threat here, which continues to be Trump and the G.O.P.

I think the D.C.C.C. made a significant mistake in this situation in Texas and also has misjudged the environment these candidates are running in and what our voters are looking for. By directly attacking a Democratic candidate, they actually gave her more attention and probably support.

Moulton: I do believe the D.C.C.C. bungled this and shouldn’t be dumping opposition research on fellow Democrats.

Bruni: Given what the D.C.C.C. did, I can see, if Moser wins the runoff, the eventual Republican attack line and maybe even ad against her. “Laura Moser: Even her own party didn’t want her.” Ouch.

Moulton: The Republicans are always going to come up with snazzy attack lines, occasionally based in fact. The line they kept using against Conor wasn’t even true. Then they just started making fun of his name! Was that really the best they could come up with? Is this middle school?

Bruni: Lamb didn’t talk much about Trump. He didn’t recommend sweeping new gun-safety measures. He didn’t call for single payer. He backed Trump’s position on tariffs. Is that instructive for other congressional districts like Pennsylvania’s 18th? But even more important and fraught and complicated: Can House candidates credibly and fruitfully follow it if the Democratic politicians eyeing 2020 are moving in a sharply leftward direction?

Moulton: When I was in Pennsylvania with Conor last week, people weren’t coming up to him and asking about Trump. They were asking him about the heroin crisis that is tearing apart families in the area; they were asking him about where he stood on the union issues that define that district; and they were asking him what he was going to do to make sure that they had Medicare and Social Security for the rest of their lives. So that’s what he talked about: the issues his future constituents care about, not the topic of the day in Washington.

O’Malley Dillon: I would also say that your question doesn’t lay out the full story. I think Seth highlights several issues where Lamb was not only where his district is but also where Democrats are, whether it was disagreeing on the tax cuts, fighting for unions, etc. And ultimately I think those positions rang true to his district and were authentic to him and the type of congressman he plans to be.

Moulton: If anything, the way to replicate what Conor did is to be honest, be yourself and listen to the people you hope to represent — not to the pundits and party officials in Washington.

Bruni: Now, let’s not beat up on pundits!

Moulton: You’re in New York!

Bruni: Excellent, an exemption! Thank you, and your basic observation is indisputable. Too many of us opine from a geographic distance too removed from most districts.

Moulton: Frank, despite the fact that you are often in New York, I know you travel a lot and talk to a ton of people on the ground yourself. What are you hearing that folks in Washington are missing?

Bruni: I’m hearing different things, and so I realize how tough this can be to navigate. That’s the wellspring of some of my questions. For instance, I’ve made repeat visits to, and at one point wrote a long column about, New York’s District 19, where one of the military veterans Seth is backing, Pat Ryan, is running in a crowded primary. I meet plenty of Democrats there who do not want him, saying he’s not progressive enough. Then I’ve met plenty of others who see him — correctly, I believe — as a better general-election candidate than some of the district’s firebrands. That said, I think the climate is shaping as one in which even a firebrand too far to the left for that district in other situations might still prevail over the Republican incumbent — in this case, John Faso, who’s quite weak.

Moulton: I’m supporting Pat not because of where he lies on the political spectrum but because I think he’s a great leader. That’s what we need more of in Washington today — people who have the courage to be honest. People ask me all the time why Congress is so stupid. How can we not believe in climate change, or whatever? What I’ve seen in the short time I’ve been here is that most of my colleagues are quite intelligent. What’s lacking in Washington isn’t intelligence — it’s courage.

Bruni: Jen, Seth, let’s use our last minutes to do a kind of modified lightning round, if that’s agreeable. Shortish questions, shortish answers.

Moulton: Sure!

O’Malley Dillon: Perfect!

Bruni: The much-panned slogan that D.C. Democrats came up with months back was “A Better Deal.” Take a quick stab at an alternative. No one will hold you to it. Go!

Moulton: Does it have to fit on a baseball cap?

Bruni: Bumper sticker. That gives you a few more words.

Moulton: I’ll stick to what I’ve been using this whole year: It’s time for a new generation of leadership.

O’Malley Dillon: If there is collusion, I’m confident that Mueller and his team will find it.

Bruni: Who is the next cabinet member to go?

Moulton: Sounds like David Shulkin, secretary of veterans affairs. Stationing armed guards to protect yourself from your own administration doesn’t strike me as a sign of longevity.

O’Malley Dillon: Agree.

Bruni: Do Jared and Ivanka last another year in D.C., or will we here in Manhattan be (gulp) welcoming them back?

O’Malley Dillon: I think New York is probably more likely.

Bruni: Thanks a lot, Jen!

Moulton: I heard they were going to Moscow.

Bruni: Hah! Now that does make me smile. O.K., one more and we’re done. Do you think Trump draws a meaningful primary challenger for 2020, assuming he’s still around?

Moulton: Any challenge to Trump from the Republican Party would be meaningful at this point.

O’Malley Dillon: 2020 is a lifetime away in political timeline, but at least today, it doesn’t seem like there will be Republicans lining up to take him on.

Bruni: 2020 is indeed a lifetime away, and so in a certain sense is November 2018, so it’ll be interesting to see if what we discussed here proves prescient and relevant. Whatever the case, I thank you both for your time and wisdom.